[Ltru] Re: last response

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>]

Hi Jefsey -

I don't know why you are trying so hard to get us to suspend your posting
privileges under the terms RFC 3934.   All concerned would be better served
if you instead focused your considerable energy on proposing specific
text for the drafts.  You might also be a more effective advocate if you kept
your postings short and to the point.  If you stop insulting WG members and
misrepresenting their positions, they might be more inclined to listen to
what you say.

However, if your disruptive postings cause the WG to waste excessive time
and energy, your posting privileges may again be suspended.

Randy, ltru co-chair

----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey at jefsey.com>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>
> Cc: <ltru at ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 5:55 AM
> Subject: last response (was: character set considerations materialis contradictory)
>

> At 07:08 26/05/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> >Hi -
> > > From: "Peter Constable" <petercon at microsoft.com>
> > > To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru at ietf.org>
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 8:35 AM
> > > Subject: RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #969]character set considerations
> > materialiscontradictory
> >...
> > > Since a reasonable application will not expose language tags to end
> > > users, and especially will not require them to type them in, and since
> > > IT professionals building applications who may need to type these in
> > > will almost certain have other reasons why they need to be able to type
> > > a-z, I think this is not a concern that needs to be addressed in this
> > > draft (no more than it being a concern e.g. for HTTP and countless other
> > > specifications).
> > >
> > > Therefore, I suggest that this item be closed.
> >...
> >
> >Since there haven't been any proposals for specific changes to section
> >7 of http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-02.txt,
> >I've closed this item with a status of "rejected".
>
> Dear Mr. Presuhn,
> I think I have been clear enough in repeating that:
>
> - characterisation of application's "reasonability" as not exposing
> non-ASCII characters,
> - the concept of outcast "end users" who would have only a limited access
> to IETF deliverables,
> - imprecise considerations such "will _almost_certain_" ignoring one shot
> all the non-ASCII development environments,
>
> are hardly acceptable in order to support a proposition seriously wanting
> to be a scalable IETF standard for the whole internet
>
> I note that for three hundred years communications have known to build
> language/script independent protocols accessible to everyone and to the
> reading of every lawmaker, Judge and Jury in every courts of the world. I
> have no doubt the WG you chair can come with a similar approach, as a still
> pending serious reading of its Charter would have shown it has been
> entrusted to by the IESG.
>
> Tired to blow in the violin of this mailing list, I went yesterday on
> records about the collective attitude of the affinity group leading this WG
> to a consensus by exhaustion, making it an RFC 3774 show case. So, I will
> not come back on the points I made. My censors will be able to go to these
> two mails. All the more than everyone will suspect your repetition of Peter
> Constable's quote and your wording were a bait on purpose, as a way to
> tackle my yesterday mail. Actually I take advantage of it to copy in Bcc
> all those who did not believe it possible.
>
> I expect that you will now ban me again for disrespect of the Chair,
> defending technical principles supporting the concepts of national
> sovereignty, facilitating international cooperation, cultural empowerment
> and absolute respect of users' person, rights and equal opportunity which
> are explicit or implicit core values of every SDO and of every postal and
> communication architecture for centuries.
>
> If you feel these values and objectives, which are my reason in life for
> decades, are no part of the IETF vision I can only feel sorry for you. I
> then suggest you introduce a Draft to also ban them as a disgrace for the
> centralised Internet you seem to want to build. I also feel sorry for the
> good work of this WG IRT the XML W3C says to need. It is hurt by their
> authors' pretension to make it a new BCP 47 and your politicking. We are
> here to discuss global scalable cute technical solutions, for their
> intelligence and/or for their support of the real world. Not to share into
> now plain to many cross-SDOs commercial maneuvers.
>
> I proposed many times we try to find a consensual proposition addressing
> that commercial interest, avoiding a market dominance and matching the
> Multilingual Internet requirements. This is because I doubt market
> organised joint monopolies can succeed nowadays, but I realise the world is
> not ready to practically replace them. In refusing/fighting this
> proposition and in asking too much, you will only push many to awake and to
> strive to develop responses preventing a lingual tools market control by
> any one, even by leading stakeholders.
>
> For that last reason, and for that reason only, we can all thank you.
> jfc
>
>
>




_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru